logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2018.12.19 2018가단3447
건물인도등
Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the underground floor of 131.3 square meters among the buildings listed in the attached list;

(b) 5,904,130 Won;

Reasons

1. In full view of the facts as to the cause of the claim, there is no dispute between the parties, and the purport of the entire argument in Gap evidence No. 2, on November 2, 2007, the Plaintiff leased the Defendant with the lease term of KRW 131.3 square meters of underground floor (hereinafter “instant building”) up to November 25, 2009, lease deposit amount of KRW 5,000, monthly rent of KRW 350,000, and the above lease has been renewed until now. The Defendant may recognize the Defendant’s receipt of the lease agreement around February 2, 2016, October 1, 12, and December 2017 through May 5, 201, October 10, 100, October 12, 12, 2012, and February 5, 2008 through February 16, 2008, 2008, 2008.

According to the above facts, the above lease contract was terminated at that time.

I would like to say.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff and pay the Plaintiff unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated at the rate of KRW 350,000 per month from June 25, 2018 to June 24, 2018, which is the sum of the rent and unpaid electricity supply fee (= KRW 5,600,000, KRW 289,810, KRW 14,320) and the rent calculated at the rate of KRW 350,00 per month from June 25, 2018 to the completion date of the delivery.

2. As to the Defendant’s assertion and its determination, the Defendant demanded repair of the building of this case from the summer in 2008, but refused to comply with the Plaintiff, and the Defendant considered damages exceeding KRW 30 million for 11 year, the lease period. The Plaintiff, in June 2018, claimed that the Defendant would pay KRW 2 million as compensation for the damage caused by water leakage in the instant building, and that the Plaintiff should be paid KRW 2 million from the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff would be paid as compensation for the damage caused by water leakage in the instant building. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff should be paid KRW 2 million from the Plaintiff on the ground that the concurrent performance defense or set-off defense.

As alleged, the Defendant violated water leakage and the Plaintiff’s repair obligation.

arrow